Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin-developers=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>,
	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:04:22 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
To: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: glob_t, glob(), glob.h or similar : where in B20.1 ? (revisiting an issue)
Message-ID: <19990811200422.A2944@cygnus.com>
References: <19990223220606 DOT B23568 AT cygnus DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 93 DOT 990224023035 DOT 5761F-100000 AT modi DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.990224023035.5761F-100000@modi.xraylith.wisc.edu>; from Mumit Khan on Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 02:36:28AM -0600

I'm cleaning out my mailbox and came across this.

Does anyone have any opinions on exporting glob from the DLL?

-chris

On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 02:36:28AM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I think this was a recent change wasn't it?  glob is actually used by
>> cygwin1.dll.  I think it actually used to be in libcygwin.a, but I could
>> be wrong.
>
>b19 didn't export glob export either. I never noticed it simply because
>my configure scripts substitute my glob if system runtime doesn't provide
>it.
>
>> All it should need is for glob.h to be moved to include and for glob to
>> be added to cygwin.din, right?
>
>That's all there is to it.
>
>> I have no problems with exporting this.  As far as I can tell, this
>> is actually a bug.
>
>I'm not sure I'll call it bug. Unless of course it really did become 
>part of POSIX.2 (I haven't checked if .2 has been approved yet). I 
>don't have my copy of Susv2 here, but I believe it's required there 
>as well.